By Mary Bennett | Alpine Meadows
In 1991, Assembly Bill 1200 established a system of school district accounting practices that requires county office of education fiscal oversight for all local education agencies, including the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District. This law requires transparency of school finances, beginning with an annual public hearing of a school district’s proposed budget, two interim budgets provided to the county office of education for approval and state department of education, and a year-end unaudited actuals budget that must be approved at a public school district governing board meeting. Additionally, each year a school district’s financial records must be reviewed by an outside auditor and a written audit report must be produced at a public board meeting.
Unfortunately, until California makes education a top priority again by at least funding education at the national average in per pupil spending, it will be up to our local community to join together in an unified effort to protect the future of our children by helping to fund their education. I believe that most people have stepped up to the plate with Prop. 98 this year. We all have high hopes for our next generation of children.
But after looking at this bond measure, I think that there will be several brave souls in my Alpine neighborhood who will have a No sign in their front yards for various reasons.
First and foremost, I find it inconceivable that our school district needs to advertise for architectural services when there are so many local skilled firms within a 100-mile radius. Yes, people that actually know how to design and build for this type of environment, along with skilled workers that can frame and build. This keeps the community going, hiring local and keeping the skilled workers in the neighborhood employed.
Second, I’m in awe at the amount of expenses going out the door for employee benefits expenditures. This far outweighs capital improvements and should be controlled at all costs.
Third, I don’t think that I want to see another general obligation bond on my property tax bill with no cap. Yes, some of our schools are old, but most schools have had major improvements and most school districts would never ask for $176 million in facilities master plan costs. Has anyone looked at their property tax bills starting from 2008?
Both my husband and myself have always voted for school bonds on a regular basis, but I find the amount of money being asked for in this bond, and what is still left on the books from the other bonds, a huge sum.
I think the taxpayers have had enough, and if they are made aware of the fact that a sub consultant has received approximately $109,000, which includes $43,744 for community phone surveys, $12,165 for informational mailers sent to residents, and $50,000 in consulting fees — and will receive a huge percentage if this bond is approved — I’m sure that most would be disappointed. I also think this will affect the majority of the long-term renters in this area — if this is approved, most of our out-of-town owners will have to raise their rents. Did you consider this?
~ Mary Bennett is an Alpine Meadows resident.
